Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York and Vicinity, 5382-5385 [E7-1882]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
5382
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules
a written summary of each meeting a
part of the administrative record.
IV. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630—Takings
This rule does not have takings
implications. This determination is
based on the analysis performed for the
counterpart Federal regulations.
Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
This rule is exempted from review by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice
Reform
The Department of the Interior has
conducted the reviews required by
Section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and
has determined that, to the extent
allowable by law, this rule meets the
applicable standards of Subsections (a)
and (b) of that Section. However, these
standards are not applicable to the
actual language of State regulatory
programs and program amendments
since each such program is drafted and
promulgated by a specific State, not by
OSM. Under Sections 503 and 505 of
SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR
730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),
decisions on proposed State regulatory
programs and program amendments
submitted by the States must be based
solely on a determination of whether the
submittal is consistent with SMCRA and
its implementing Federal regulations
and whether the other requirements of
30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have
been met.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 13132—Federalism
This rule does not have Federalism
implications. SMCRA delineates the
roles of the Federal and State
governments with regard to the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations. One of the
purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a
nationwide program to protect society
and the environment from the adverse
effects of surface coal mining
operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of
SMCRA requires that State laws
regulating surface coal mining and
reclamation operations be ‘‘in
accordance with’’ the requirements of
SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that
State programs contain rules and
regulations ‘‘consistent with’’
regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to SMCRA.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
11:52 Feb 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In accordance with Executive Order
13175, we have evaluated the potential
effects of this rule on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have
determined that the rule does not have
substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
The basis for this determination is that
our decision is on a State regulatory
program and does not involve a Federal
program involving Indian lands.
Executive Order 13211—Regulations
That Significantly Affect the Supply,
Distribution, or Use of Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
Executive Order 13211 which requires
agencies to prepare a Statement of
Energy Effects for a rule that is (1)
considered significant under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Because
this rule is exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866 and is not
expected to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects
is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C.
1292(d)) provides that a decision on a
proposed State regulatory program
provision does not constitute major
Federal action within the meaning of
section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c). A determination has been
made that such decisions are
categorically excluded from the NEPA
process (516 DM 13.5(A)(2)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain
information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has
determined that this rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State
amendment that is the subject of this
rule is based on counterpart Federal
regulations for which an economic
analysis was prepared and certification
made that such regulations would not
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
have a significant economic effect upon
a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, this rule will ensure that
existing requirements previously
promulgated by OSM will be
implemented by the State. In making the
determination as to whether this rule
would have a significant economic
impact, the Department relied upon the
data and assumptions for the
counterpart Federal regulations.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
This rule: (a) Does not have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million;
(b) Will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, geographic
regions, or Federal, State or local
governmental agencies; and (c) Does not
have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of U.S.-based enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises. This
determination is based upon the fact
that the State submittal, which is the
subject of this rule, is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for
which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal
regulation was not considered a major
rule.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose a cost of
$100 million or more in any given year
on any governmental entity or the
private sector.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 938
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
Dated: January 12, 2007.
H. Vann Weaver,
Acting Regional Director, Appalachian
Region.
[FR Doc. E7–1862 Filed 2–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[CGD01–06–023]
RIN 1625–AA98
Anchorage Regulations; Port of New
York and Vicinity
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
Coast Guard, DHS.
06FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules
ACTION:
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
expand the boundary of a Special
Anchorage Area on the Hudson River at
Nyack, NY. This proposed action is
necessary to facilitate safe navigation in
that area and provide safe and secure
anchorages for vessels not more than 20
meters in length. This proposed action
is intended to increase the safety of life
and property on the Hudson River,
improve the safety of anchored vessels,
and provide for the overall safe and
efficient flow of recreational vessel
traffic and commerce.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
April 9, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Waterways
Management Division (CGD01–06–023),
Coast Guard Sector New York, 212 Coast
Guard Drive, room 321, Staten Island,
New York 10305. The Waterways
Management Division of Coast Guard
Sector New York maintains the public
docket for this rulemaking. Comments
and material received from the public,
as well as documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the
docket, will become part of this docket
and will be available for inspection or
copying at room 321, Coast Guard
Sector New York, between 8 a.m. and 3
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Commander M. McBrady,
Waterways Management Division, Coast
Guard Sector New York at (718) 354–
2353.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you
do so, please include your name and
address, identify the docket number for
this rulemaking (CGD01–06–023),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each
comment. Please submit all comments
and related material in an unbound
format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying. If you would like
to know they reached us, please enclose
a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change
this proposed rule in view of them.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
VerDate Aug<31>2005
11:52 Feb 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
for a meeting by writing to the
Waterways Management Division at the
address under ADDRESSES explaining
why one would be beneficial. If we
determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time
and place announced by a later notice
in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
As part of a waterfront revitalization
effort, the Village of Nyack is
encouraging waterfront use by the
general public. This proposed rule is in
response to a request made by the
Village of Nyack to ensure the safe
navigation of increased vessel traffic
expected to arrive along the village
waterfront due to this revitalization
effort.
The Coast Guard is designating the
area as a special anchorage area in
accordance with 33 U.S.C. 471. In
accordance with that statute, vessels
will not be required to sound signals or
exhibit anchor lights or shapes which
are otherwise required by rule 30 and 35
of the Inland Navigation Rules, codified
at 33 U.S.C. 2030 and 2035. The
proposed expanded special anchorage
area will be located on the west side of
the Hudson River about 1,600 yards
north of the Tappan Zee Bridge, well
removed from the channel and located
where general navigation will not
endanger or be endangered by unlighted
vessels. Providing an anchorage well
removed from the channel and general
navigation would greatly increase
navigational safety.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would expand the
boundary of a current special anchorage
area located on the Hudson River at the
Village of Nyack, NY. It would include
all waters of the Hudson River bound by
the following points: 41°06′06.8″ N,
073°54′55.5″ W; thence to 41°06′06.8″ N,
073°54′18.0″ W; thence to 41°05′00.0″ N,
073°54′18.0″ W; thence to 41°05′00.0″ N,
073°55′02.2″ W; thence along the
shoreline to the point of origin (NAD
1983). The boundaries of the special
anchorage area would increase from its
current size of approximately 735 yards
by approximately 1,030 yards to
approximately 935 yards by
approximately 2,250 yards. The 200
yard expansion beyond the current
boundary would occur on the eastern
side and the 2,250 yard expansion
would occur on the southern side of the
special anchorage area.
All proposed coordinates are North
American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).
The expanded special anchorage area
would be limited to vessels no greater
than 20 meters in length. Vessels not
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5383
more than 20 meters in length are not
required to sound signals as required by
rule 35 of the Inland Navigation Rules
(33 U.S.C. 2035) nor exhibit anchor
lights or shapes required by rule 30 of
the Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C.
2030) when at anchor in a special
anchorage area. Additionally, mariners
utilizing the expanded anchorage area
are encouraged to contact local and
State authorities, such as the local
harbormaster, to ensure compliance
with additional applicable State and
local laws. Such laws may involve, for
example, compliance with direction
from the local harbormaster when
placing or using moorings within the
anchorage.
Vessels would not be authorized to
anchor within a buoyed fairway within
the expanded special anchorage area.
The fairway will be marked to prevent
vessels from anchoring near an active
cable.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, and
does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under
section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office
of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
We expect the economic impact of
this proposed rule to be so minimal that
a full Regulatory Evaluation is
unnecessary.
This finding is based on the fact that
the proposal conforms to the changing
needs of the Village of Nyack and the
changing needs of recreational vessels
along the Hudson River. The proposed
eastern boundary of the special
anchorage area is approximately 970
yards from the 12-foot contour on the
west side of the Hudson River and
approximately 2,600 yards from the 12foot contour on the eastern side of the
Hudson River. The resulting impact to
vessel transits in this area is so minimal
because the special anchorage area
leaves more than enough room for the
navigation of all vessels. This will allow
for greater safety of navigation and
traffic in the area, while also providing
for a substantial improvement to the
safety of anchorages in the area.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
5384
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
This proposed rule would affect the
following entities, some of which might
be small entities: the owners or
operators of recreational or commercial
vessels intending to transit in a portion
of the Hudson River near the expanded
special anchorage area. However, this
special anchorage area would not have
a significant economic impact on these
entities for the following reasons. The
proposed eastern boundary of the
special anchorage area is approximately
970 yards from the 12-foot contour on
the west side of the Hudson River and
approximately 2,600 yards from the 12
foot contour on the eastern side of the
Hudson River. It is also about 1,700
yards from the 600-foot wide Hudson
River Federal Project Channel. The
eastern boundary of this proposed
expanded Special Anchorage Area only
extends an additional 200 yards from
the Nyack shoreline. This is more than
enough room for the types of vessels
currently operating on the river, which
include both small and large
commercial vessels. Thus, this special
anchorage area will not impede safe and
efficient vessel transits on the Hudson
River.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule would have a
significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree
this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.
If the rule would affect your small
business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact Lieutenant
Commander M. McBrady, Waterways
Management Division, Coast Guard
Sector New York at (718) 354–2353. The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
11:52 Feb 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no
new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. We have analyzed
this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year.
Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not effect a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically
significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that might disproportionately
affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have
a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD and Department of
Homeland Security Management
Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination
that there are no factors in this case that
would limit the use of a categorical
exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, we believe that
this rule should be categorically
excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph
(34)(f), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. This rule
fits the category selected from paragraph
(34)(f) as it would expand a special
anchorage area.
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules
A preliminary ‘‘Environmental
Analysis Check List’’ is available in the
docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. Comments on this section
will be considered before we make the
final decision on whether the rule
should be categorically excluded from
further environmental review.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
PART 110—ANCHORAGE
REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 110
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through
1236, 2030, 2035 and 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g);
and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Amend § 110.60, by revising
paragraph (o–2) to read as follows:
§ 110.60
Port of New York and vicinity.
*
*
*
*
*
(o) * * *
(o–2) Hudson River, at Nyack. That
portion of the Hudson River bound by
the following points: 41°06′06.8″ N,
073°54′55.5″ W; thence to 41°06′06.8″ N,
073°54′18.0″ W; thence to 41°05′00.0″ N,
073°54′18.0″ W; thence to 41°05′00.0″ N,
073°55′02.2″ W; thence along the
shoreline to the point of origin (NAD
1983), excluding a fairway in the
charted cable area that is marked with
buoys.
Note: The area is principally for use by
yachts and other recreational craft. A
mooring buoy is permitted.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: January 24, 2007.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7–1882 Filed 2–5–07; 8:45 am]
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
11:52 Feb 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2006–23882]
RIN 2127–AH34
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Door Locks and Door
Retention Components
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (NHTSA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We are amending our safety
standard on door locks and door
retention components in order to add
and update requirements and test
procedures and to harmonize with the
world’s first global technical regulation
for motor vehicles. Today’s final rule
adds test requirements and test
procedures for sliding doors, adds
secondary latched position
requirements for doors other than
hinged side doors and back doors,
provides a new optional test procedure
for assessing inertial forces, and extends
the application of the standard to buses
with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds,
including 12–15 passenger vans.
Today’s final rule also eliminates an
exclusion from the requirements of the
standard for doors equipped with
wheelchair platform lifts.
DATES: Today’s final rule is effective
September 1, 2009. Optional early
compliance is permitted on and after
February 6, 2007. Petitions for
reconsideration must be received by
March 23, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration
must be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Nassif Building, Washington, DC
20590–0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: For
technical issues: Mr. Maurice Hicks,
Structures and Special Systems
Division, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone (202) 366–6345; telefax (202)
493–2739; Maurice.hicks@dot.gov.
For legal issues: Ms. Rebecca Schade,
Office of the Chief Counsel, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–2992;
telefax (202) 366–3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5385
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Safety Problem
B. Harmonization Efforts and the Proposed
Upgrade
1. Global Technical Regulation (GTR)
2. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
3. Public Comments
III. SAFETEA–LU
IV. Upgrade to FMVSS No. 206
A. The GTR Process
B. Definitions
C. Hinged Door Requirements
1. Load Tests
2. Inertial Test
3. Door Hinges
D. Side Sliding Door Requirements
1. Side Sliding Door Latch Requirements
2. Side Sliding Door Test Procedure
a. Compression Versus Tension
b. Test Device and Set-Up
c. Application of Force
d. Performance Requirement
A. Door Locks
B. Applicability
V. Certification Information
VI. Costs, Benefits, and the Effective Date
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
I. Executive Summary
Between 1995 and 2003, over 54,000
motor vehicle occupants were ejected
annually from their vehicles. Ejections
through glazing (i.e., ejections through a
vehicle window) comprised 59 percent
of all ejections. Twenty-six percent of
all ejections occurred through openings
other than side glazing and doors, such
as windshields, open convertible tops,
and open truck beds. The remaining 15
percent of ejections occurred through a
vehicle door. Given the sources and
magnitude of the overall safety problem
posed by ejections from vehicles, the
agency is addressing the problem
comprehensively, focusing on ejections
through glazing as well as ejections
through doors.1 This final rule focuses
on those ejections that occur through a
vehicle door.
Currently, passenger cars, trucks, and
multipurpose passenger vehicles must
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door
locks and door retention components.
Most of this standard’s requirements
were established in the early 1970s, in
1 On September 15, 2004, the agency proposed
revisions to FMVSS No. 214, Side impact
protection, which would likely induce vehicle
manufacturers to use side curtains as a
countermeasure (69 FR 55550). The Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU)
added a provision to 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 which
requires the agency to conduct a rulemaking
proceeding to establish performance standards to
reduce complete and partial ejections of vehicle
occupants. See 49 U.S.C. 30128(c)(1). Containment
requirements for side curtains may be one of the
countermeasures to prevent ejections through side
glazing.
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 6, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5382-5385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-1882]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[CGD01-06-023]
RIN 1625-AA98
Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York and Vicinity
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
[[Page 5383]]
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to expand the boundary of a Special
Anchorage Area on the Hudson River at Nyack, NY. This proposed action
is necessary to facilitate safe navigation in that area and provide
safe and secure anchorages for vessels not more than 20 meters in
length. This proposed action is intended to increase the safety of life
and property on the Hudson River, improve the safety of anchored
vessels, and provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of
recreational vessel traffic and commerce.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before April 9, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Waterways
Management Division (CGD01-06-023), Coast Guard Sector New York, 212
Coast Guard Drive, room 321, Staten Island, New York 10305. The
Waterways Management Division of Coast Guard Sector New York maintains
the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received
from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as
being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will
be available for inspection or copying at room 321, Coast Guard Sector
New York, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander M. McBrady,
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector New York at (718)
354-2353.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-06-
023), indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know
they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to the Waterways Management Division
at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial.
If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at
a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
As part of a waterfront revitalization effort, the Village of Nyack
is encouraging waterfront use by the general public. This proposed rule
is in response to a request made by the Village of Nyack to ensure the
safe navigation of increased vessel traffic expected to arrive along
the village waterfront due to this revitalization effort.
The Coast Guard is designating the area as a special anchorage area
in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 471. In accordance with that statute,
vessels will not be required to sound signals or exhibit anchor lights
or shapes which are otherwise required by rule 30 and 35 of the Inland
Navigation Rules, codified at 33 U.S.C. 2030 and 2035. The proposed
expanded special anchorage area will be located on the west side of the
Hudson River about 1,600 yards north of the Tappan Zee Bridge, well
removed from the channel and located where general navigation will not
endanger or be endangered by unlighted vessels. Providing an anchorage
well removed from the channel and general navigation would greatly
increase navigational safety.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would expand the boundary of a current special
anchorage area located on the Hudson River at the Village of Nyack, NY.
It would include all waters of the Hudson River bound by the following
points: 41[deg]06'06.8'' N, 073[deg]54'55.5'' W; thence to
41[deg]06'06.8'' N, 073[deg]54'18.0'' W; thence to 41[deg]05'00.0'' N,
073[deg]54'18.0'' W; thence to 41[deg]05'00.0'' N, 073[deg]55'02.2'' W;
thence along the shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 1983). The
boundaries of the special anchorage area would increase from its
current size of approximately 735 yards by approximately 1,030 yards to
approximately 935 yards by approximately 2,250 yards. The 200 yard
expansion beyond the current boundary would occur on the eastern side
and the 2,250 yard expansion would occur on the southern side of the
special anchorage area.
All proposed coordinates are North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).
The expanded special anchorage area would be limited to vessels no
greater than 20 meters in length. Vessels not more than 20 meters in
length are not required to sound signals as required by rule 35 of the
Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 2035) nor exhibit anchor lights or
shapes required by rule 30 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C.
2030) when at anchor in a special anchorage area. Additionally,
mariners utilizing the expanded anchorage area are encouraged to
contact local and State authorities, such as the local harbormaster, to
ensure compliance with additional applicable State and local laws. Such
laws may involve, for example, compliance with direction from the local
harbormaster when placing or using moorings within the anchorage.
Vessels would not be authorized to anchor within a buoyed fairway
within the expanded special anchorage area. The fairway will be marked
to prevent vessels from anchoring near an active cable.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
This finding is based on the fact that the proposal conforms to the
changing needs of the Village of Nyack and the changing needs of
recreational vessels along the Hudson River. The proposed eastern
boundary of the special anchorage area is approximately 970 yards from
the 12-foot contour on the west side of the Hudson River and
approximately 2,600 yards from the 12-foot contour on the eastern side
of the Hudson River. The resulting impact to vessel transits in this
area is so minimal because the special anchorage area leaves more than
enough room for the navigation of all vessels. This will allow for
greater safety of navigation and traffic in the area, while also
providing for a substantial improvement to the safety of anchorages in
the area.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently
[[Page 5384]]
owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: the owners or operators of recreational
or commercial vessels intending to transit in a portion of the Hudson
River near the expanded special anchorage area. However, this special
anchorage area would not have a significant economic impact on these
entities for the following reasons. The proposed eastern boundary of
the special anchorage area is approximately 970 yards from the 12-foot
contour on the west side of the Hudson River and approximately 2,600
yards from the 12 foot contour on the eastern side of the Hudson River.
It is also about 1,700 yards from the 600-foot wide Hudson River
Federal Project Channel. The eastern boundary of this proposed expanded
Special Anchorage Area only extends an additional 200 yards from the
Nyack shoreline. This is more than enough room for the types of vessels
currently operating on the river, which include both small and large
commercial vessels. Thus, this special anchorage area will not impede
safe and efficient vessel transits on the Hudson River.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Commander M. McBrady,
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector New York at (718)
354-2353. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities
that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of
the Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive
5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this
case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should
be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits
the category selected from paragraph (34)(f) as it would expand a
special anchorage area.
[[Page 5385]]
A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' is available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section
will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the
rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental
review.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035 and
2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Amend Sec. 110.60, by revising paragraph (o-2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 110.60 Port of New York and vicinity.
* * * * *
(o) * * *
(o-2) Hudson River, at Nyack. That portion of the Hudson River
bound by the following points: 41[deg]06'06.8'' N, 073[deg]54'55.5'' W;
thence to 41[deg]06'06.8'' N, 073[deg]54'18.0'' W; thence to
41[deg]05'00.0'' N, 073[deg]54'18.0'' W; thence to 41[deg]05'00.0'' N,
073[deg]55'02.2'' W; thence along the shoreline to the point of origin
(NAD 1983), excluding a fairway in the charted cable area that is
marked with buoys.
Note: The area is principally for use by yachts and other
recreational craft. A mooring buoy is permitted.
* * * * *
Dated: January 24, 2007.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7-1882 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
